I'm sorry, guys. I can't get past her vote for the Iraq "war".

[elehhhhna]

And I don't think this is a record that will help us make peace with the sane parts of the world that we have offended.

I can't get past it.

If you can explain me out of that, please, enlighten me.

[Logical]

1. She likes war. That is your answer. n-t

[Cooley Hurd]

2. .

[yeoman6987]

3. I am assuming you are referring to the Secretary Hillary Clinton

Ok. Kerry did. Biden did. A lot of them did. President Obama was not in office so for him to say that he would not have voted is kinda nice but he did not have all the evidence that the others did. The entire thing was a mess, but she made a mistake. I think overall she has been really good for America and especially woman all over the World. I understand your disappointment, but try to remember all the good she did.

[PassingFair]

303. A mistake is something that happens by accident.

She is a HAWK.

She will not get my vote.

[Raksha]

354. She won't get my vote either--for that reason and others.

[DURHAM D]

4. Does that mean that you also think John Kerry can not be

an effective SOS? How would you rate him?

[Scootaloo]

15. Secretaries of state aren't elected

[DURHAM D]

19. He is leading the effort to

"help us make peace with the sane parts of the world".

Therefore the OP must think he should not have been chosen by the President because other countries naturally hate him because of his vote on Iraq.

jftr - I think this OP is tripe.

[JI7]

21. both KErry and Clinton are well liked in the international community

[DURHAM D]

22. Yes, I know.

That is why I think the OP is

[hughee99]

200. Vice Presidents are. Biden voted for the IWR too. n/t

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

302. Goddamn you guys keep doing this...

the question is NOT Clinton vs Republican.

You guys always make that strawman argument.

It's Hillary vs Democratic opponent in primary.

This is like IMPOSSIBLE to get you people to understand.

[hughee99]

333. The question in the next primary may be a DEM who voted for the IWR vs

a DEM who voted against it (or at least, wasn't in a position to vote FOR it).

Call it a strawman, call it whatever you want, but it's a REAL choice that people will make. It's a real choice that people DID make in 2008 when I recall Clinton was the presumptive nominee in the DEMOCRATIC primary (until she wasn't). It's not fucking rocket science, it's not complicated, and it's not an issue you seem to want to address.

[peace13]

168. Funny you bring him up....

He won a presidential election and laid down before demanding the office. But... in his defense...he did march on Dc regarding Vietnam.

[warrior1]

5. from what I remembered

bush cooked the books and the democrats fell for it. It was chaos created by the bush admin, everyone 'cept most of us here didn't.

I guess you have to ask yourself, would you prefer a republican in the WH. It matters when it comes to just about everything in our lives. Just one of those things is this new president will be putting the next supreme in the high court.

[Maedhros]

8. The problem with your explanation

is that anyone who was taken in by the Bush/Cheney War on Iraq Dog and Pony Show is not to be trusted with high office.

[laundry_queen]

25. That's basically it

I mean, I was a pregnant stay at home mom who enjoyed reading political websites and *I* knew. Of course, I was Canadian and had REAL news so that helped. But still.

[VanillaRhapsody]

29. and the people in the U.S. where MUCH different in those days....

people here tend to take that for granted...LOTS of Americans wanted a war...ANY war....

[laundry_queen]

34. I'd agree with you if we were talking about Afghanistan

but by the time the Iraq war came around, the only reason SOME people were FOR it was propaganda lying about Iraq having anything to do with 9/11 and the excessive flag waving by the politicians. If Hillary would've stood up to it and told the truth she'd be president right now.

[VanillaRhapsody]

39. But that is where BUSH took us to....She didn't vote FOR that.....

she voted giving the President the power to go to war....HE moved us to Iraq...that was on Cheney and Bush.

and she WILL be President if she wants it....

[laundry_queen]

42. Oh, c'mon, everyone knew what that vote meant.

and I agree, she likely will be president if she runs. And better her than some nasty republican (redundant, I know).

[VanillaRhapsody]

53. No not everyone did....and MOST Americans were convinced Iraq was involved AND had

nuclear weapons...some STILL believe he did....and just like they were....she was lied to.....and the American public was seeking a scapegoat! Some just conveniently forget the environment in those days....Americans had blood in their eyes...

[PoliticAverse]

59. Oh many of us remember the 'environment' quite well, which is why we hold those people went along

and refused to stand up responsible.

[VanillaRhapsody]

140. So ALL your fellow Americans that DID want revenge? That demanded it....

you want them lined up to walk the plank too?

[Capt. Obvious]

150. Yes

And?

[progressoid]

86. If she didn't know what the vote meant then that's an even more damming.

[slipslidingaway]

88. ^^^^+1000 ^^^^ n/t

[VanillaRhapsody]

143. and that goes for you too....IF YOU know so much better.....why don't YOU run?

Obviously YOU would make a much better candidate right?

[Arugula Latte]

297. Oh she KNEW better -- but it wasn't politically expedient for her to stand up and say so.

Same goes for the rest of the traitorous Democrats who voted in favor of slaughtering and maiming untold tens of thousands of innocents.

[VanillaRhapsody]

298. Oh so they knew that in advance of George Bush going into Iraq....

that we were going to be there for 10 years....that was what they were voting for....yeah right I so believe that....

[Arugula Latte]

299. Where did I say anything about ten years?

They slaughtered untold thousands in just a few months.

Your defense of this wilfull invasion and mass murder is disturbing.

[VanillaRhapsody]

305. I agree with you that THAT war was an atrocity...BUT Hillary Clinton and other Democrats

and MANY LIBERALS and Democratic citizens were led to believe Saddam Hussein WAS behind the 9/11 bombings. To deny that is to alter history! Many other countries believed the same damn thing....So your rewriting of history isn't going to fly. In fact at a Kid Rock Concert for the troops in Bagdad....parts of the World Trade Center were passed around for the troops to touch....IT was SOLD as such. Revisionist history doesn't suit you...

[Arugula Latte]

312. 9-11 was NOT given as an official explanation to Congress re: Iraq -- it was the

weapons of mass destruction bullshit. Remember that Donald Rumsfeld *knew* where they were?

Yes the Bush administration tried to blur the lines of Iraq/9-11 with the idiotic Fox News-believing masses, but Congress was not given that as the reason for invading Iraq and slaughtering its people.

[VanillaRhapsody]

141. The vote gave the President the authority.....that is all....

If you think you can find a country that wouldn't feel like that after 9/11 please find one....We were attacked....countries do horrible things when they are attacked...ALWAYS HAVE...

[progressoid]

216. Iraq attacked us on 9/11?

How many countries invade another country with no connection to the attack?

[VanillaRhapsody]

292. did I say that? No I did not....

[progressoid]

313. Ok, let me review.

Maybe I misinterpreted it. You said:

The vote gave the President the authority.....that is all....

If you think you can find a country that wouldn't feel like that after 9/11 please find one....We were attacked....countries do horrible things when they are attacked...ALWAYS HAVE...

Yes, sometimes countries do horrible things when they are attacked - to their attackers
Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.

And to dismiss the vote as a vote just to give the President the authority to attack is, to put it mildly, disingenuous. It's like saying, "Yes, I gave my child a gun and told him he could shoot somebody if he wanted. But it's his fault for actually doing it, I don't deserve any criticism for it."

[VanillaRhapsody]

321. EXCUSE ME....I don't need you to tell me WHAT I know...

what is your suggestion for the midterm elections coming up....throwing out all the Democrats that made that SAME vote and just start from scratch? The upcoming midterms are MUCH more important that which Democrat wins the primary. Without control of the House....we get more of the same no matter WHO is the President unless its a Republican...then we lose ALL the ground we have made.

[Arugula Latte]

266. Are you effing kidding me?!

Saudi terrorists attacked us so that justifies us slaughtering tens of thousands of innocents in a country that didn't do jack shit to us -- THAT'S supposed to be a defensible position?

BULLSHIT!!

Millions of us knew better and said so at the time but of course we were shot down and stomped into the dust by the war profiteers and the bloodthirsty.

[VanillaRhapsody]

293. and Hindsight is 20/20...

and millions MORE Americans WERE bloodthirsty at the time you were in the minority then.....do not try to rewrite history with me...

[VanillaRhapsody]

142. Since you are SOOOO much smarter than our politicians.....why don't YOU run for office

quite complaining and demanding better candidates....BE ONE!

[Capt. Obvious]

151. Why don't you run

since you're wrapping yourself in their same defense.

[VanillaRhapsody]

258. Because I LIKE the Democratic choices.....

I am not the one demanding BETTER ones...THATS why!

[progressoid]

217. That's what I keep telling the Dalai Lama too!

Is that a variation of argumentum ad crumenam? Or perhaps its just an appeal to accomplishment with a dash of ad hominem.

[VanillaRhapsody]

260. No it isn't...If you are going to demand better candidates...and YOU HATE

the ones we have....then the dilemma is yours. If you don't like them.....and YOU are so much wiser than those who do....then JUMP IN! DO Something besides complain!

[progressoid]

267. Who said I HATE the ones we have? Every thing isn't black or white.

One can be critical and supportive.

I don't HATE Hillary. If she gets the nom, I'll vote for her.

And canvas and GOTV like I did for the President.

Still got the 8 foot signs in my garage...



Also, I'll criticize her when she's wrong. That's politics.

[VanillaRhapsody]

308. this is beyond critical....this is downright dismissal of one of the most electable

Democratic candidates we have seen in years...AND to top it off is a woman....who has a BULK of public service work to judge by not that one vote. She voted to give the President the Authority....and he USED that authority. I judge her body of work...not that just one vote. I am not expecting a Messiah who walks on water without a single flaw...who I expect to NEVER make a decision that I myself would never make. I am not expecting PERFECTION...you are...

[progressoid]

317. It's not dismaissal, it's political debate.

You're gonna have a fun time around here when the primaries come around.

[VanillaRhapsody]

319. No in this thread she is being summarily dismissed....

Yeah I AM going to have fun....looking forward to it..

But if you want to throw out ALL the Democrats that took that vote...you have ALOT of work to do to get back the House...

THAT is much more critical for a future progressive agenda than which democrat becomes president next.

Can't we debate THAT instead?

[progressoid]

325. I'm not throwing out ALL the Democrats.

And I am working to get back the house...http://appelforiowa.com/

But that's another thread.

[VanillaRhapsody]

326. You cannot JUST hold that vote against ONE of them then....that is hypocritical...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists

Congressional votes
House of Representatives
On September 14, 2001 bill House Joint Resolution 64 passed in the House. The totals in the House of Representatives were: 420 Ayes, 1 Nay and 10 Not Voting. The Nay was Barbara Lee, D-CA. [1] Lee is notable as the only member of either house of Congress to vote against this bill.
Senate

On September 14, 2001 Senate Joint Resolution 23 passed in the Senate by roll call vote. The totals in the Senate were: 98 Ayes, 0 Nays, 2 Present/Not Voting (Senators Larry Craig - R and Jesse Helms - R).

[progressoid]

327. I don't. They're all guilty.

And I wrote a lot of letters to congress that year to express that sentiment. I was part of the 21%.

[YOHABLO]

137. Unfortunately the media didn't do its job .. those that spoke out .. were shamed and >

ostracized by the Bush administration: Scott Ridder, Phil Donahue .. etc. The American people were psyched into getting the culprits of 9/11 .. and believed (as if) a sovereign country like Afghanistan or Iraq were behind this ... and those paying attention knew that it was nothing of the sort .. If any country could have been, Saudi Arabia, our ally seemed suspect (men and money) .. that too was very unlikely. I think that people are just too plain stupid and will believe anything that they are told. At least the right wingers, and some of the dems ..like Clinton.

[VanillaRhapsody]

145. Then those who have such good instincts.....and are demanding better candidates....

should stop yammering about it....and run for office.

[Capt. Obvious]

152. And when they run

you can become their ardent cheerleader treating any criticism of them as a personal affront.

[beerandjesus]

199. Hahahaha! +1

[VanillaRhapsody]

263. And when are YOU running funny man?

Don't just stand around laughing and complaining...DO SOMETHING...otherwise you are as useless as a Republican Congress...

[VanillaRhapsody]

262. No I happen to LIKE the Democrats....is that a problem for you?

[Arugula Latte]

296. So we shouldn't express an opinion unless we are running for office.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

[VanillaRhapsody]

323. No but you should have some alternative plans....that COULD work....

that would make more sense than just hammering ANY and everyone who IS doing that job...

[Arugula Latte]

339. My alternative plan to invading Iraq and shock & aweing Iraqis to death was: Don't invade!

They didn't listen, though.

[PassingFair]

306. Total bullshit.

The majority of the democrats in Congress voted against involvement in the war.

Only idiots believed in the "weapons of mass destruction" crap.

[VanillaRhapsody]

322. uhhhh

Congressional votes

House of Representatives
On September 14, 2001 bill House Joint Resolution 64 passed in the House. The totals in the House of Representatives were: 420 Ayes, 1 Nay and 10 Not Voting. The Nay was Barbara Lee, D-CA. [1] Lee is notable as the only member of either house of Congress to vote against this bill.[2]

Senate
On September 14, 2001 Senate Joint Resolution 23 passed in the Senate by roll call vote. The totals in the Senate were: 98 Ayes, 0 Nays, 2 Present/Not Voting (Senators Larry Craig - R and Jesse Helms - R).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists

[PassingFair]

330. Uhhhhh....what's your point?

You're citing the AUMF, not the IWR...

The Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), Pub. L. 107-40, codified at 115 Stat. 224 and passed as S.J.Res. 23 by the United States Congress on September 14, 2001, authorizes the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001.




From a post of mine in 2005...


First of all, these Senators voted AGAINST *'s IWR:

Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chafee (R-RI)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)

Let's here it for them!

Do NOT FAIL to mention that the MAJORITY of Democrats in the House voted NO!

In the Senate, 22 of the 50 Democrats voted no on the Iraq War Resolution (IWR). HOWEVER, of those still serving in the Senate, the opponents of the IWR comprise a 20-18 majority. The yes votes no longer in the Senate are Carnahan, Cleland, Daschle (who were all defeated), Torricelli (who probably would have been because of scandal), and Breaux, Edwards, Hollings and Miller (who all retired). Of the no voters, only Wellstone and Bob Graham are gone from the Senate. And in the House, a solid majority of Democrats--126 to 81--voted no. Even in Congress Democratic support for the war was a minority position.

A look back in time on DU would show that the majority of democrats were screaming "OH HELL NO!" in regards to the invasion of Iraq, and MILLIONS of Americans were taking to the streets to protest the Anglo-American take-over of Iraq.


The "New" Democrats have a plan that relies on their notion of "plausible deniability".

The rest of us are supposed to shut-up and let the spin play out. Their arguments are:
We did NOT vote to go to war! (SURE they didn't)
We were fooled by faulty intelligence! (SURE they were)

The "chess players" figured that they would "win", whatever the outcome of the invasion:
If it had worked (5% chance), they would have voted in accordance with the "winning" side.

If it didn't work (95% chance) they could pull out the "you lied to us" semantics.

Cynical. Murderous. Unforgivable.

Hundreds of thousands have died. Time to demand truth and accountability from our dems.



A minority percentage of our democrats voted yes and sat back and watched the invasion unfold without trying to stop it because they believed it was politically expedient to do so.

[krawhitham]

276. Well she wanted it in 2008 too

How well did that work out?

[deutsey]

158. Bob Kerrey, Evan Bayh, Lieberman were on the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq

along with McCain, Kristol, Gingrich, George Shultz and others helping to pound the drums of war in Iraq.

The CLI had close links to the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and the American Enterprise Institute (AEI).

Meanwhile, millions of demonstrators around the world were trying to stop the invasion.

[Vincardog]

207. This is the heart of the matter. Do we want our government to run by and for the benefit of the001%

Or do we demand that if be run by and for US? HRC sat on the WALMART BOD.
Her Husband crammed NAFTA down our throats.
Our hope and change candidate not only refused to go after the criminals in the last administration but appointed many of them to cabinet positions in his own.
As long as we allow our candidates to be limited by who can raise the most money,
we will be left with the "Best" choice the rich will allow US.

I call BU on that.

Offer me a Real candidate with real proposals how they will remove the influence of money from our elections or Quit bitching if I decide not to legitimize your charade of an election.

Sorry to reply to to you deutsey, I am not implying that you ever said anything to me.
You were just holding up the ugly head of the beast we have to slay
.

[deutsey]

230. No problem

I agree with you.

[RedstDem]

24. i knew it was all BS

and i still don't have access to all the juicy stuff.

[GoneFishin]

84. I knew it was BS too. The first time I heard Bush babble the name "IRAQ" I knew he was pulling

it out of his ass.

It's disappointing to learn that the number of gullible people far outstrip the number of critical thinkers in this country.

[jeff47]

112. That juicy stuff probably made it much less clear.

Since W and company were cherry picking intelligence, the "juicy stuff" that was classified probably backed up W's story.

[DrDan]

147. of course it was - and many many of us knew it - I left the D party within an hour of that shameful

vote

[Whisp]

193. past President Bill Clinton had access to juicy stuff

most Presidents do, information that may have had something to do with that debacle -- CIA reports.

And still, Hillary voted the wrong way - even with extra juicy stuff. Unless that extra juicy was all about making some big bucks off that misery for the Big Buck Club.

[Arugula Latte]

300. 95 percent of us on this site knew it.

Millions who marched in the streets knew it.

[PassingFair]

309. Very Vanilla selective memory. Strange for an "underground" participant and NOT Progressive at ALL.

Rewriting history, indeed!!!

[Arugula Latte]

310. Thank you!

[PassingFair]

316. My pleasure!

I can't believe this case is being made here.

I'm outraged!

[sendero]

48. I dont' think so..

... the case made for the Iraq war was so flimsy and pathetic that anyone over 12 years old with an IQ of 95 or better could see through it.

The people who voted for it did not vote for it because they believed there were WMDs - Blix, Ritter and others adamantly and correctly said there were not. They voted for it as an act of political expediency and nothing more. They were afraid to go against the mood of revenge they perceived in the country, afraid to be painted "soft on terror".

Were they so inept that they could could not see how badly this "war" would play out? Apparently, yes.

I have zero respect for anyone that voted FOR the Iraq War Resolution, period, forever, end of story.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

50. I was in rapt attention precisely because I was fascinated by the entire

con game that was being played and swallowed in those days.

[Hippo_Tron]

75. It's not even a question of "WMD's"

WMD was a term popularized by the administration to conflate chemical and biological weapons with nuclear weapons. There was some reasonable belief that Saddam probably had some kind of chemical and biological weapons. But nobody in their right mind would agree that a few canisters of mustard gas lying around are worth starting a war over. Turns out Saddam didn't even have a few canisters of mustard gas, but that's largely beside the point. The bullshit case for war was based on 2 claims...

1) Saddam was building a nuclear weapon and was somewhere near completion

2) Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda

And by transitive property Saddam would give a nuclear weapon to Al Qaeda. There was zero evidence for these claims.

[jeff47]

114. Zero public evidence.

But W and company were cooking the books on the classified evidence so that it backed up their claims.

[BlindTiresias]

117. Plenty of people

Didn't fall for it, though.

[jeff47]

122. Those who were receiving classified briefings did.

And since those same people complained about "cooking the books" afterwards, it rather heavily implies W and Company fabricated a very convincing story for them.

[stevenleser]

176. There is way too much revisionist history on this from those who want to criticize Democrats

Here is my article on the subject. http://www.opednews.com/articles/Iraq-War--Six-Year-Annive-by-Steven-Leser-090304-145.html

The reality is, around the same time as the IWR vote, the UN Security Council voted 15-0 to pass UN SEC Res 1441 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1441 . All of THOSE countries thought there was a good chance that Iraq had WMD and wanted to put pressure on Iraq to let UN Weapons inspectors back into the country, the same stated goal as IWR.

There are those here, and you can see it throughout the responses to this OP, who like to brag and pat themselves on the back that they 'knew' the suggestion that there were WMD in Iraq was a lie. What they are bragging about, assuming there is any evidence that they guessed right, is guessing right on a "Yes-No" proposition. Anyone has a 50% chance of guessing right in a situation like that. Furthermore, if we look at the countries on the SEC Council back in 2002 who voted unanimously to pass 1441, they are:

China
France
Russia
UK
USA
Bulgaria
Cameroon
Colombia
Guiana
Ireland
Mexico
Mauritania
Norway
Singapore
Syria

China and Russia have intelligence capabilities rivaling our own and THEY voted 'Yes'. Syria's intel doesnt rival our own in general, but it does rival us in the Middle East. They ALSO voted yes.

So this idea that we have to punish Democratic lawmakers who voted Yes on IWR when the rationale for IWR at the time was the same as UN Sec Res 1441, to get UN Weapons inspectors back into Iraq, which it accomplished, and who found no WMD and reported that, that criticism of Democrats is ludicrous and forced and more than liberally sprinkled with revisionist history.

[MannyGoldstein]

270. So why did most Congressional Democrats vote "no"?

Seems odd, no?

[elehhhhna]

284. YOU FORGOT POLAND

and imo we persuaded them with bribes and threats, b/c that's how the BFEE rolls.

[stevenleser]

285. Poland is separate from the UN Security Council vote. The whole "New Europe" vs "Old Europe"

thing that played out was, IMHO, an over-eagerness by the newly free former Warsaw pact countries to join the west in some sort of endeavor, anything, that proved their new independent status and asserted their new position in the world.

Poland, unfortunately as we saw with Romney going there to speak, still tends to identify more with the Republican party here than the Democratic Party. I'm not sure a whole lot of arm-twisting was necessary in the end, for them to join the Iraq endeavor.

[PassingFair]

311. That's a George Bush quote.

YOU forgot Eritea.

[stevenleser]

328. Probably. I still think what I wrote is correct. nt

[PassingFair]

331. It's a George Bush quote, and you listed the "Coalition of the Coerced".

Was your head in the sand during the lead-up to the war?

[stevenleser]

336. You aren't making any sense at this point. nt

[Hippo_Tron]

240. Bob Graham chaired the intelligence committee, he looked at the classified "evidence" and voted no

John Duncan, a Republican congressman from Tennessee was personally briefed by Condi Rice on the classified "evidence" to try and dissuade him from voting no because they wanted a unanimous yea vote from the Republican caucus. He still couldn't bring himself to vote for it.

The classified "evidence" was just as speculative as the public evidence. Everyone who wasn't too busy shitting their pants about being labeled weak on terror realized that.

[stevenleser]

278. Much of the Sen intelligence committee voted Yea, because the evidence was equivocal either way

That is why the IWR and UN Sec Res 1441 seemed reasonable. Because it was couched as an effort to get the UN Weapons Inspectors back into Iraq to verify one way or the other whether there were WMD and other weapons that were banned per prior UN Resolutions.

[Hippo_Tron]

335. So it's okay to hand absolute war powers over to man hell bent on an invasion...

Because the evidence is equivocal? If Hillary and others had at least held the administration to some restrictions like in the Biden-Lugar resolution, they could at least somewhat reasonably claim that they insisted war be used as a last resort and that Bush used it as a first resort. But the IWR was a green light for Bush to do whatever he wanted and he did precisely that.

[stevenleser]

337. They werent absolute in any sense of the word. Limited to Iraq and contingent on conditions that

were not present at the time of the invasion. In other words, IWR was violated by the war.

So you are blaming Democrats for passing a resolution that was violated. I hope you see the irony in what you are doing.

[Hippo_Tron]

341. Enlighten me, what conditions demanded by the IWR were not present at the time of the invasion?

The text clearly states...

"AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq."

The President subsequently deemed it necessary and appropriate and we went to war as authorized by the resolution.

[stevenleser]

342. Its in the article I wrote which I linked in my #176 above. nt

[Hippo_Tron]

345. I read your article, I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding about how war powers work

"He determines necessary" means just that. It doesn't matter if Hans Blix says there are no weapons present, Saddam is fully complying with weapons inspectors, and we've completely neutralized him as a conventional threat with no-fly zones and other measures. As long as there is an authorization saying that the President can go to war if "he determines it necessary" he can do it and it's perfectly legal.

[stevenleser]

346. I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding about the IWR.

It says as he determines necessary TO...

there are two conditions listed. Neither was satisfied. If those meant nothing, congress would have simply left it at "As he determines it is necessary."

The findings of the UN Weapons inspectors completely make impossible a Presidential finding that Iraq was a threat or in contravention of any applicable UN Resolutions. In fact, as I make clear in my article, its hard for that finding without the weapons inspector reports with the no fly zones and the tens of thousands of US troops in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia at the time.

You also have no explanation for UN Security Council Resolution 1441 and the 15-0 vote that produced it.

At some point, you and folks pushing what you have been pushing have to start being intellectually honest about this. The facts are not there to blame Democrats who voted yes on IWR and it is revisionist history to blame them.

[Hippo_Tron]

347. Security Council Resolution 1441 did not authorize the use of force

The two conditions following the TO are...

1) Defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq ; and

2) Enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq .

There's nothing that says both conditions have to be met. The President determined that Iraq was a national security threat to the United States, so we went to war. There is no such thing as a presidential finding being impossible. Presidential finding means that the president can find whatever the hell he wants to find once congress delegates him that authority. If they wanted to be able to review his finding to determine for themselves that Iraq was a threat upon the time of a potential invasion before giving him the green light, they should've said so.

[stevenleser]

348. I didnt say 1441 did. And neither condition of IWR was met and demonstrably so.

Once the weapons inspectors noted that Iraq did not have any banned weapons, they were not in violation of any UN resolutions. And they were not a threat with the US flying the no fly zones and the troops in Iraq and Kuwait.

There is zero chance for anyone finding that either criteria was met at all. Even a little bit.

[Hippo_Tron]

349. Again, presidential finding means the president can find whatever the hell he wants...

Once congress authorizes him to do so. If you don't understand that, then you don't understand war powers or much of anything about executive authority.

[stevenleser]

350. No matter how many times you repeat incorrect information, it will not make it right.

There were conditions attached that were not met. You cannot get past that.

[Hippo_Tron]

356. The conditions were not subject to any legislative or judicial review

The only action that could possibly taken would be ex-post action and there's a bigger chance of me winning the Powerball than a President being punished for an erroneous finding.

If you think it was wise for them to hand that kind of authority to a man whose agenda was clearly to invade Iraq at all costs, then that's your prerogative.

[Hissyspit]

62. There was plenty of reason not to fall for it.

There were plenty of people sounding the alarm.

[JDPriestly]

73. But Hillary Clinton had just moved out of the White House.

Of all people, she should have known the truth. Further, the Code Pink ladies who had visited Iraq reported back to her and explained why she should not vote for the war. She didn't just dispute their message. She was rude to them when they were polite to her. I don't trust Hillary either because of her vote and because i saw the video of her confrontation if you will with Code Pink.

[Whisp]

194. Hillary, Iran, Code Pink and Cookies:

Just to illustrate how foot in mouth Hillary Clinton is, how rude and insensitive she is:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/05/11/513634/-CodePink-steps-on-Hillary-s-cookies-updated#

On May 8th, Jes Richardson, Leslie Angeline and Medea Benjamin of CodePink crashed a Hillary fundraiser and managed to unfurl a banner protesting her remarks about "obliterating" Iran. Clinton's dismissive reaction as Jes was led from the room was to hope that "he didn't step on any of the cookies or the cakes."

==

Hillary Clinton, is this what you want the United States to do to Iran? Because if that's the case, I'll help CodePink step on your cookies and cakes any damn day of the week. Your callous remarks at the fundraiser in the face of those who protest against warfare and destruction waged against innocent civilians are evocative of Marie Antoinette. I only hope the history attached to them does not have to be as repetitive.

==

Jes Richardson tells how Hillary's cookies got stepped on:

Leslie, Medea and I enter DC's plush Omni Shoreham Hotel looking for Hillary Clinton's fundraising event. We're in disguise, wearing mainly browns, blues and muted reds. ...............

.....Medea and Leslie appear soon after. Medea had been shouting about the children in Iran and Iraq, and demanding that Clinton apologize for her "obliterate" comment and her Iraq vote. She raised a peace sign as she was escorted out. Leslie cried, "I want you to apologize to the Iranian people" as she was led out too. Leslie, the inspiration for all of this, is on the 10th day of another hunger strike. She began on May Day to protest Hillary's horrible statement. Leslie has fasted for a total of 40 days since February in her quest for impeachment and peace with Iran.

[JDPriestly]

206. Thanks but I got a message that the video no longer exists. Thanks again for the information.

[hfojvt]

133. not ALL Democrats fell for it

a majority in the House voted against it and so did 22 in the Senate.

Hillary just happened, for some strange reason, to be on the wrong side.

[darkangel218]

353. I personally dont think Mrs Clinton would be the best candidate

Whether she voted for the war or not.

We need someone like Warren or even Grayson ( I know, I know ).

[joshcryer]

138. The Democrats knew what Bush was up to.

The thing so-called liberals don't get is that Bush was invading with or without the IWR.

[Martin Eden]

221. "I guess you have to ask yourself, would you prefer a republican in the WH."

No, that's not the question I ask myself.

The real question is, can't the Democratic Party nominate a better presidential candidate than someone who was fooled by the propaganda of the Bush administration (when most of us here knew better); or knew it was propaganda but voted yea anyway to burnish some "muscular" foreign policy creds; or was on board with neocon agenda to begin with?

If/when the late great United States falls into the dustbin of history, I think it's likely historians will point to the colossal strategic blunder in Iraq as the tipping point. If ever the American people needed strong Democratic leaders with intelligence and good judgement to stand up and stand together to prevent a horrible atrocity, it was in October 2002 when the Iraq War Resolution came to a vote.

I cannot get past that, and I never will. Failure to oppose the launching of that war is inexcusable and revealed a lack of judgement and character that are essential qualities for a President.

The choice isn't between Hillary Clinton and a republican.

It's between the kind of president our country needs, and a republican.

[bvar22]

222. "bush cooked the books and the democrats fell fot it."

Not True.
Over 155 Democrats voted AGAINST the Resolution to Use Military Force in Iraq.
Many stood in their houses and warned their colleagues and the nation that the Bush Administration was lying us into an unnecessary war.
(BTW: Not single Democrat who voted AGAINST the Iraq War was given a position of power or authority in the Obama White House.)

Hillary and the others were more worried about the personal political consequences than the thousand they were sentencing to death.

I was in St Paul, Minnesota at that time, working on the Wellstone re-election campaign.
Wellstone was in a very close race against Republican Norm Coleman for his Senate seat.
The Vote For WAR was scheduled in October, just a few weeks ahead of the election.

War Lust was at a peak, and the Media were Beating the War Drums 24/7.
All the Talking Heads and Political Experts were in agreement that if Wellstone voted against the AUMF, it would cost him his re-election.

Believing that this NO would would cost him his Senate seat,
he voted his conscience anyway.
Later, at a meeting with his campaign workers at his HQ in St Paul,
he apologized and and said,
"Sometimes, a man just has to do the RIGHT THING.
For me, this was one of those times."

Ironically, after this vote, Wellstone surged ahead in the polls,
even in conservative areas of Minnesota.
Seems that voters appreciate honest politicians who STAND UP for their beliefs.
That is called "integrity".



[font color=firebrick][center]"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone [/font][/center] [center] [/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]

[sabrina 1]

290. Anyone who fell for Bush's lies when most sentient people KNEW they were lying, is likely to make

more fatal errors of judgement should they have the power to do so. Hundreds of thousands of human beings died as a result of what you say was naivete. We cannot afford such blind trust in leaders.

I prefer someone who KNEW they were lying and would have much more confidence in such a person than in anyone who actually believed those obvious lies.

I agree with the OP, too many victims to forgive those who enabled one of the worst occupiers of the WH in most people's living memories.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

314. EVERYONE??!!! Goddamn apologist speak

Think all of these senators were hush about going to war and never shared their point of view with Hillary?

Here are the brave ones:

Daniel Akaka (D-HI)
Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Robert Byrd (D-WV)
Lincoln Chafee (R-RI)
Kent Conrad (D-ND)
Jon Corzine (D-NJ)
Mark Dayton (D-MN)
Richard Durbin (D-IL)
Russell Feingold (D-WI)
Robert Graham (D-FL)
Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
James Jeffords (I-VT)
Edward Kennedy (D-MA)
Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
Carl Levin (D-MI)
Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
Patty Murray (D-WA)
Jack Reed (D-RI)
Paul Sarbanes (D-MD)
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
Paul Wellstone (D-MN)
Ron Wyden (D-OR)

http://www.democrats.com/node/6890

[cthulu2016]

6. I get that, but I am curious how you voted in 2004.

[Whisp]

7. I waiting for explaining as well.

Nothing comes close. If she can't even make a half assed attempt at a genuine apology for her stupidity, well....

More War from the Tough Lady.

[BlueStater]

9. She's never apologized or admitted her vote was a mistake.

I have no use for this person and I'd wish she'd go away. She's been in the spotlight for over 20 years. That's more than enough. I'm just plain sick of her. It's absolutely mind-boggling to me that the same people can dominate politics for two decades and very few serious alternatives have come fourth in all that time. Totally unbelievable.

[OKNancy]

237. yes she did - she said it was a mistake

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2006/12/hillary_clinton-2/

[PassingFair]

315. I look at our state politics in Michigan and I can see why.

Anyone with ethics is run out, pronto.

That's how we get someone like Andy Dillon as Speaker of the GD DEMOCRATIC House.
Browbeating real capital D democrats and stalling their work.

A servile, ingratiating, sycophantic, fawning, unctuous, oily, oleaginous, piece of sewage,
at the head of our party.

Of COURSE he went over to the Republican side and has since resigned in SHAME.
Of COURSE he is still getting paid.

If Michigan is any indicator, this is why we don't have any real choices on other levels.

[randys1]

10. and your alternative?

Rand Paul?

Mike Huckabee?

Rick Perry?

I mean if Hillary is the nominee, these will be your likely choices.


I dont like her either, she is a rightwing Dem but then so is Obama, when asked who Obama looked to regards past prez he didnt say Carter he said Reagan

give me a break

But either of them are exactly 3,475,789 times better than any or all cons put together

[Scootaloo]

17. Thus why we have primaries, Dear Randy.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

215. amen.

[99Forever]

20. Alternative, you say?

How about AlternativeS"

Sen. Elizabeth Warren

Rep. Alan Grayson

Sen. Bernie Sanders.

There are more, but there's a starter list for you. Pretending there aren't real solid alternatives to DINO Third Way Clinton, doesn't exactly make you appear a very well informed "Democrat." Anyway, welcome to DU. Stick around you might learn something.

[VanillaRhapsody]

33. EVERY ONE of them are extremely risky against Republicans

some take THAT for granted.

They are not stomped into the ground by ANY stretch of the imagination...and they VOTE!!!

Which is why this MID TERM is what we SHOULD be discussing....its going to be VERY influential for WHOEVER becomes President.

My fellow Liberals if YOU really are serious about wanting to see your Liberal issues addressed....a REAL move to the Left....then you better start getting serious about the mid-terms....who is the nom for 2016 will have the wind at their back to take us further to the left! If you don't believe me....look how long women have waited to get Equal Pay Legislation.....and we are HALF the damn population! THAT is how hard it IS to move to the left.....they have been trying to get that ONE amendment passed my entire adulthood...and it is still not even close!

[BlindTiresias]

97. Extremely risky against Republicans?

I thought the common attitude among doctrinaire dems was that the Republicans are fielding lunatics and are done for?

[840high]

60. Yes. YES.

[Auntie Bush]

70. They would never win the election!

All very fine people whom I just love...but they could never win the general election.
Be realistic!

[99Forever]

87. I simply don't agree.

Nor do I give any credence to fortune tellers. They aren't realistic.

[Adrahil]

156. Elizabeth will one day be a contender.

Alan and Bernie, not so much. I'm sorry, but if you think they can contend in the generals, I don't think you're being realistic. I think you sound a LOT like the Repugs who think they are losing elections because their candidates just aren't conservative enough.

[99Forever]

244. I met many prognosticators.

Not a one of them was ever correct on a consistent basis.

Please proceed.

[Adrahil]

329. I'm just giving my honest opinion. Like anyone, I can be wrong.

But I just don;t see the evidence of a huge latent vote for such a candidate.

[Niceguy1]

134. nominating them

Would be a disaster

[SomethingFishy]

172. 6 Years ago a Junior Senator who also happened to be a

black man was elected President. Had you asked me 8 years ago I would have said that was impossible.

We are going to "be realistic" ourselves right into the ground. Anything is possible. The Republicans have done more stupid things in the last 6 years than even I thought was possible. They should be easy to defeat. Yet this election is going to be another tough one... Maybe it's time to change tactics.

[99Forever]

245. Exactly.

Until these "savvy political gurus" have actually ran a progressive candidate that lost, it's nothing more than excuses for kissing their corporate owners asses.

[laundry_queen]

318. YES!

A good populist progressive with a good marketing campaign could win - they keep telling us one couldn't but that's crap. They've never tried...but other countries have and it works. You are right - they just don't want to.

[brooklynite]

279. ...who, as people her point out, ran as a mainstream Liberal Democrat

...not a fiery socialist or lefist.

[Walk away]

205. I think they were asking for any alternatives the voters...

who don't belong to DU will vote for. I do think it's a toss up between the 3 of them for president of DU.

[99Forever]

242. I see what you did there.

I'm way impressed.

[Whisp]

45. ''I dont like her either, she is a rightwing Dem but then so is Obama''

Absolute bollocks to say Hillitary and Obama are the same on that spectrum.

Bill was running around the Oval office with his pants around his ankles and Hillary calling his sex partners Trash. Talk about low class wtf. And let's not get into Policies...

PLEASE!

[OwnedByCats]

89. Nobody around here is going to vote for a Republican

Unless of course they are stooges posing as liberals, but I think it's safe to say that most here are not going to vote R. What everyone against Hillary wants is other better liberals to run. Why does it have to be Hillary? There is time for others to come out to run against her in the primaries.

I thought for sure Hillary was going to get the nomination back in 2008. However Obama came along and changed that. No reason that couldn't happen again if the right candidate came along.

I just think it's funny that when someone around here expresses a dislike for a specific D candidate, some people assume the vote would go to a Repub. I think most would sooner not vote at all. Not that anyone should do that of course because I guess that would be almost like voting for an R.

[jeff47]

120. Not voting at all is effectively a vote for the Republican.

Given our system, not voting or voting third party is effectively voting for the opposite candidate (Except in a few, extremely rare case)

Unfortunately, our system makes it a zero-sum game.

[OwnedByCats]

123. Yeah that was my point at the end

Not voting can only lead to more votes for R, and I suspect voting 3rd party would contribute as well.

I just can't see the members here voting directly for a Republican lol

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

231. No, it's not. Not voting, or voting 3rd party, deprives both establishment parties a vote.

0 +/- 0 = 0

[jeff47]

265. -1 D vote has the same effect as +1 R vote.

Both help the Republican win equally.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

269. And, - 1 R vote has the same effect in reverse.

The more simple and realistic solution is for the Democrats to appeal to the votes of the left and get them instead of whining about Nader and seeking the votes of the middle.

It's up to the candidates to appeal to the voters whose votes they want. If they fail to do so it's their own fault.

[jeff47]

289. If we weren't in a two party system, that would be true.

But we are in a two party system. As a result, you are aware that withholding your vote has the same effect as voting for the Republican. So no, it's not entirely the party's fault. You know what you are doing.

In addition, what is the logical result for the party after they lose in the general? They turn right - that's where the voters were. So if your goal is to get the party to turn left, you are doing an excellent job of shooting yourself in the foot.

In the primary, vote for the most appealing candidate. In the general, vote for the Democrat. And when that Democrat runs in the next primary, vote against them, followed by the D in the general. Repeat as necessary until the party moves left.

How do I know that will work? It is exactly what the Republicans did to move their party from Ike to the current insanity.

[MannyGoldstein]

11. The vast majority of Congressional Democrats voted against the war

Sadly, the ones who voted for war have been the most rewarded by Washington - Clinton, Kerry, Biden, etc. Very bad.

[JI7]

12. so why don't you support someone else ? or not vote for her ?

[Politicalboi]

13. I can't get over the Sniper Fire story myself

If she can lie like that and there's video of just the opposite, that scares me. That just made her look stupid, and a liar. Stupid lies that can be proven lies come from pathological liars. But if she was the only choice, and we needed to vote for her, I would.

[Jackpine Radical]

14. Leider hast du Recht.

[Whisp]

16. and she got her daughter talking the same lie.

or did Chelsea volunteer on her own? 'Hey Mom, I have a great idea!....'

That's a character definition right there - Tuzla. How absolutely idiotic that she thought she wouldn't be found out. I don't think she knew what The Youtube really was or that people had better memories and tapes than she.

Hillary is intelligent in many ways but dumb as 14 bags of hammers in other ways.

And that: Is Obama ready to pick up that call at 3:00am? Well, she sure wasn't ready when Benghazi hit the fan. She ran like a scared 'I'm too tired for this shit' rabbit.

I'm not sure if you saw this, but is this the kind of person you want near that big button or the red phone?

[Raine1967]

83. This video is a real problem.

I have no animosity about her.

This, however, is problematic. It will be used against her.

I look forward to a healthy primary. I just don't see anyone coming forward to run against her.

That is a problem, in my view.

[L0oniX]

189. Well ...our liars are better than theirs.

[Gman]

18. Hillary is not pure enough

[VanillaRhapsody]

35. She is not the Savior and hero the Lefty of the Leftiest are looking for....

and if Elizabeth Warren ran and won....they would turn on her at the FIRST sign of trouble....at the first dither...

[Hissyspit]

67. Or maybe people just have no intention of forgetting that horrible lapse of judgment

that enabled massive horrors.

[Gman]

90. They turned on Obama less than 48 hrs

after the election in 08.

[BlindTiresias]

100. Actually

I gave him his first full term.

[Hissyspit]

64. That's not an issue of purity.

[Gothmog]

233. Hillary Clinton is the only Democratic candidate who could be Texas in play

If the Democrats win or keep Texas close, the GOP can not get to 270 electoral votes. There is good polling that shows that Hillary Clinton could win Texas http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/01/clinton-could-win-texas.html I would love to see Texas in play or see the GOP worry about Texas.

Wendy Davis is making inroads in Texas and is appealing to the same groups who could help Clinton in Texas. There are rumors that Clinton may be the speaker at the Texas Democratic State Convention at the end of June

[Gman]

234. Since I'm in Texas if love to see it

We supported her in 08. We'll do it again.

[LittleBlue]

23. There is nothing to explain. She's just another mask

Pull off the mask and you'll see the faces of hundreds of executives in board rooms, the elite of the 1%.

What difference does it make which mask the real masters of this country wear?

I'll vote for someone who represents the possibility, even if slight, that they can change things. Someone like Warren or Sanders. Hillary? Pointless. Count me out of politics for the next 8 years if she's nominated. If she's our next president, I'd rather we were honest with ourselves and just officially let all the country's decisions about money be made in the Goldman and Citi boardrooms. At least then people couldn't pretend that this charade is real.

Real possibility for change or bust for me. I'm not interested in the DINO scam.

[sendero]

49. It's so nice to see.....

.... that at least a few people "get it".

[Raksha]

355. Me either. Been there, done that too many times already.

Re "I'm not interested in the DINO scam."

[hrmjustin]

26. It is hard I agree but I will vote for her.

[Vashta Nerada]

27. Why apologize?

She's a corporate shill.

I'm not sorry to say that.

[idendoit]

28. Hillary's seemingly corporatist leanings have worried me.

Bill said he regretted his support for NAFTA. Easy to say now. I wonder if she'll get asked. As they say in politics: Never answer the question that wasn't asked.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

30. Either she was playing 3rd Way"pragmatic" politics or too stupid to realize Bush was lying.

In either case it makes her unfit to be president.

[chillfactor]

31. too bad you are so self-focused on one vote

so what you are saying is you will not vote for any Democrat who voted for a war we were lied into fighting..

Hilary has done many good things for this country and is well-respected in the international community

another democratic vilifying one of our own..some Democrats are very good at that

[VanillaRhapsody]

37. I wonder sometimes at that "Democrat" part....

[WhiteTara]

32. I think her 4 years as SOS shows who she is.

So unless you're looking for another puke steering us into a ditch (okay, abyss) then I hope you say you love her.

If you're looking for a rise, okay. If you want more say, get more involved. You can get more involved. Join your county club; run for Central Committee. Get involved and then say....I can't get past it.

It's easy to criticize and harder to do the work. Be a walker, not a talker.

[yallerdawg]

36. For what it's worth...

as I remember it, many Democrats authorized Bush to use this vote as a tool to force Hussein to make real concessions -- to know the US was deadly serious --and did not really mean to authorize war.

I agree with Ms. Clinton. Nothing for her to apologize regarding her vote.

The Iraq war belongs to Bush 2.0.

However, remember Benghazi?

(Just kidding, "Benghazi" is now part of a drinking game - I'm actually out of alcohol rehab now, so I'm just messin' with my compadres who can still play!)

[Maedhros]

44. RE: "did not really mean to authorize war."

Any Democrat who voted for the Iraq War Resolution and actually believed this is far too clueless and easily manipulated to deserve election.

Bush's intentions vis-a-vis Iraq were obvious to even the most casual observer. Anyone claiming they were "tricked" into voting for the IWR is nakedly lying to our faces.

[yallerdawg]

52. Regardless of how Hillary voted...

we now know the Iraq war was coming.

There are so many good reasons to not support Hillary, this is just a distraction.

"What difference does it make?" (oh wait, that's Benghazi again - oops, bottoms up!)

[Maedhros]

78. Indeed, there are many reasons.

However I felt compelled to point out that the "Bush tricked us" excuse for pro-IWR Democrats doesn't hold water.

[yallerdawg]

96. Bush tricked us all

I never imagined that "war" authorization vote meant anything except telling Hussein the US was united in it's will to remove him by any means necessary. This is the Middle East! This was Iraq. Bush 1 invaded Iraq. How'd that work out for him?

I remember Bush sitting across from Gore saying the US should never be involved in nation building or policing the world.

Why haven't we gone after North Korea, Iran, Syria, now Russia? Hillary has been right there, Secretary of State, no war?

Obama hasn't started a new war.

It was Bush. We need to hold him accountable for the Iraq war, not Hillary.

[Maedhros]

125. Speak for yourself.

The Iraq War was a fraud from its initial conception, and anyone who voted for it is complicit.

[otohara]

38. I Got Past It

because the thought of a Republican president again makes me wanna commit suicide.

[hack89]

40. If she is the party nominee, will you vote for her?

Or stay at home?

[Generic Other]

57. For me the answer is

No. Not playing if the game is lesser of two evils. Never again.

[hack89]

58. So you will stay at home. Ok. Nt

[Generic Other]

71. Yes. I will stay home

And I may not be alone.

Why would I relish having to go through the Clinton dirty laundry years yet again? 8 more years of obstruction, constant rightwing attacks, daily conspiracy talk, rehashes of Monica Benghazi's greatest hits. The return of another family dynasty. Hell, the return of Bush to the White House given that Bill has become like a son to Poppy. Corporate money. Loads of it. Renewed push for more NAFTA/TPP deals that are ruinous to workers. Enthusiasm for war.

What the hell does my country stand to gain from more years of that?

[hack89]

72. Can't be any worse than a tea bagger president, , right? Nt

[Generic Other]

74. Yeah it can be

Betrayal by friends is always worse than when one's enemies strike. You expect your enemies to be evil.

[GoneFishin]

92. Agreed. It's insidiously divisive too. I think there would be negligible support for NSA spying,

drone strikes, chained CPI, etc.. here on DU if Dim Son were still in office.

I don't play the "lesser of two evils" game anymore either.

[woo me with science]

220. This is an excellent point. nt

[jeff47]

104. I'm sure that will be comforting when Medicare goes away. (nt)

[Generic Other]

165. That threat doesn't seem to go away even under Democrats

Yet it is an empty threat and a scare tactic. Eliminating medicare is not a winning strategy for any party.

[Adrahil]

157. Then I think you're foolish. Winning elections MATTERS. NT

[Generic Other]

167. I am foolish?

I resist the idea of presidential dynasties and I am foolish? I resist anyone whose ties to Wall Street make them beholden to corporate interests and I am foolish? I resist the idea of getting behind the election of a woman who voted for and still defends her vote for the Iraq war and I am the foolish one? I doubt her willingness to finish a job based on her having thrown in the towel countless times before -- her healthcare bill as First Lady thrown in the trashcan when she faced opposition, her Senate career thrown away in order to run for president and lose her own party's nomination, her fleeing her SOS job when the going got tough...I am not impressed by her commitment to the job. And her cutesy, "I am not running...I may think about it..." indecisiveness. If she doesn't even know if she wants the job...I sure as hell don't want her.

Clinton brings nothing new to the table. I don't want to spend another 4 or 8 years wishing I had not voted for a DINO because that is what would make me look foolish.

I will back candidates who actually sound like real liberals and who are not ashamed to say so. If this means I leave some slots blank, so be it.

And yes, winning elections matters, but only if the ones you help elect actually follow through on their promises, not just say whatever it takes to get elected.

[Adrahil]

170. Frankly, yes.

You can justify it however you like, however the fact remains that ANY of the Democratic candidates would be better than ANY of the Republican candidates. If you care about Progressive politics and enable the Republican candidate in a pursuit of greater ideological purity, you are are foolishly cutting off your nose to spite your face.

[Generic Other]

173. Barbara Bush gushes about Bill Clinton, says he treats George H. W. Bush like a father

Bill Clinton may have forced her husband out of office - but Barbara Bush still considers him family.

The former First Lady lavished praise on the man who defeated George H.W. Bush in 1992, lovingly saying that Clinton is “a good fellow” who is “very thoughtful about calling.”

“He never said a mean word about anyone,” she said in an interview with Parade Magazine set to appear this weekend.

She even revealed that her sons - including, of course, George W. Bush, who followed Clinton into the Oval Office - call him “My brother by another mother.”

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/barbara-bush-gushes-bill-clinton-treats-george-h-w-bush-father-article-1.1113917

So does mean Hillary is their new daughter-in-law? I am sorry, but being in Barbara Bush's rolodex is a deal killer for me.

[L0oniX]

185. Fuck no!

[hack89]

186. Will you vote or stay at home? nt

[L0oniX]

188. No one is going to force me to vote for a corporatist war hawk from any party.

[hack89]

192. Who mentioned force? Just wondering what you will do with your vote. nt

[L0oniX]

208. Keep wondering.

[hack89]

210. No problem

just so we are clear, I support your choice to vote your conscience. Choice is what being a Democrat is all about.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

232. I always vote. I vote for the most progressive candidate on the ballot.

If there isn't one, I write one in.

[donco]

41. So who

would get your vote outta the top repug contenders?

[Octafish]

43. Her comments about Gaddafi got to me.

"We came. We saw. He died." Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Moammar Gaddafi.

That's how they talk in "Goodfallahs" or "Gangster Squad." It's not the mindset I prefer in the company I keep or the people I vote for.

For all his despotic failings, Gaddafi, unlike King Abdullah, actually got around to using his nation's oil wealth to make life better for the average Libyan and for many people in neighboring nations -- some of the "poorest" places on the planet.

What's real Democracy? Using the nation's treasures for all or leaving it to Sam Walton's heirs to share? The mere mention of the word 'Walmart' should send them to the Vomitorium. Ah. Vomitoria.

[shanemcg]

106. Ah, man! Your CDS is just making you take that out of context

At least that's what someone told me when I posted the same about her. Coo Coo for Cocopuffs.

Hillary could have been more saintly than Mother Theresa and that alone would do it for me. Not just the tone deaf rip off of Caesar, but the insane cackling after just creeps me the hell out. She'd have no problem filling up the old "official" extra-judicial kill list.

Oh, and then there's her statement about annihilating Iran, wiping them off the map. Of course, Ahmadinejad was Satan come to flesh when he allegedly said that about Israel, but Hillary really saying it about Iran shows she is ready for the Presidency.

[Octafish]

254. It's just common fashion sense.

I also can't get past she sided with the corporations over the average shmoe when it came to credit card bankruptcy. She was only a Senator, then. When she was a Secretary of State, she was a super duper double nought spy:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cables-spying-un

That Wikileaks. No wonder they're secret.

[shanemcg]

268. Oh, almost forgot the Wikileaks revelations

that the Clinton Dept of State had sent messages to all consulates to try and obtain DNA samples of leaders and other important people in the countries. Pretty creepy when taken in conjunction to Darth Cheney's proclamation that we would have bio-weapons tailor made to people's DNA. Maybe Chavez wasn't so crazy.

Who is that dude with Hillary? One of Sacha Baron Cohen's new characters? hehe

[Octafish]

277. The late Mutassim Billah Gaddafi.

Fourth son of Moammar. At the time of the photo, April 2009, he was Libya's National Security Advisor and in Washington seeking to procure arms, the quid pro quo for helping combat terror, post 9-11. He was executed the same day with his dad.

[KoKo]

177. Yes...Here is the Video of "We Came, We Saw, He Died.....

It was chilling.

Hillary Clinton on Gaddafi: We came, we saw, he died

[Whisp]

195. that comment was made by a tone deaf Idiot!

jayzuz! wtf is the Matter with her?

[Octafish]

255. It's like human life didn't matter.

The fact she knew the guy really does make it terrifying.

[rumdude]

261. that's kinda spooky

the tone of it. and the look on her face. granted, she could have been exhausted at that moment and just come off looking like that.

[aikoaiko]

46. I'm sure you will if it's between her and some republican.

[L0oniX]

187. Because we suck less.

[aikoaiko]

190. Yes, and sometimes we actually do truly good things.

President Gore > President Chimp
President Kerry > President Chimp
President Obama > President McCain
President Obama > President Romney

[krawhitham]

47. I can't get past her Walmart work

She helped to keep Unions out of Walmart

[OKNancy]

235. Over 20 years ago when her husband was the Governor

She was a member of the board, not management and had little power at that time. Also Sam was still alive.
Record in the Senate -
100% rating by Service Employees International Union (SEIU) - Positions
Lifetime AFL-CIO score = 94%
Voted for increasing minimum wage any time is was voted on

All the big unions supported her in her last run.

[krawhitham]

275. "I'm always proud of Wal-Mart and what we do and the way we do it better than anybody else"

jgraz said it pretty well back in 2008

Hillary Clinton is a fighter? Name one time she's fought for anything besides Hillary Clinton.

Where was her "fight" during the Senate confirmation of John Ashcroft?

Where was her "fight" during the Senate confirmation of Alberto Gonzales?

Where was her "fight" during the failed Senate confirmation of John Bolton?

Where was her "fight" when she voted FOR cloture on the nomination of corrupt corporatist Priscilla Owen, clearing the way for her confirmation to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals?

Where was her "fight" when she voted FOR cloture on the nomination of unqualified fascist Janice Rogers Brown, clearing the way for her confirmation to the DC Court of Appeals?

Where was her "fight" when she voted FOR cloture on the nomination of religious zealot and homophobe William H. Pryor, clearing the way for his confirmation to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals?

Where was her "fight" when she voted FOR cloture on the nomination of John Roberts, clearing the way for his confirmation as Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court?

Where was her "fight" during the Senate confirmation of Samuel Alito?

Where was her "fight" when she skipped the Senate debate and confirmation vote on Michael Mukasey?

Where was her "fight" against the Military Commissions Act?

Where was her "fight" during this summer's vote on the Iraq War Supplemental?

Where was her "fight" during the vote to extend FISA?

Where was her "fight" during the Walter Reid scandal?

Where was her "fight" during the debate on Telecom Immunity?

Where was her "fight" when she SKIPPED the Senate vote to strip TelCo immunity from the FISA bill?

Where was her "fight" on the possible impeachment of Dick Cheney?

Where was her "fight" on the possible impeachment of George Bush?

Where was her "fight" against the myriad scandals surrounding the current administration?

Where was her "fight" when she campaigned for Joe Lieberman against Ned Lamont?

Where was her "fight" when she proposed legislation to ban flag burning?

Where was her "fight" when she voted FOR the 2001 Bankruptcy Bill?

Where was her "fight" when she voted FOR the USAPATRIOT act?

Where was her "fight" when she voted FOR the renewal USAPATRIOT act?

Where was her "fight" when she voted AGAINST an amendment to prevent the use of cluster bombs against civilian populations?

Where was her "fight" when she voted FOR the Iraq War Resolution?

Where was her "fight" when she voted FOR the Kyl/Lieberman amendment?


For some reason, Hillary Clinton only seems to be "a fighter" when she's fighting to feed her own naked ambition. Is that really what we want in a president?

[OKNancy]

283. just saw this... a few errors in that list

jumping out at me is... She voted No on Alito and Roberts for the Supreme court and she voted against the FISA bill in 2008

I bet there are other errors too, but it's a fool's mission to try to correct people whose minds are made up.

[PassingFair]

320. It's a fool's mission to act as if she is our only alternative to a Republican.

What's Russ Feingold been up to lately?

HRC is the ABSOLUTE WORST candidate we could field.

She is divisive within the party, and she will
bring Republicans out in DROVES.

[krawhitham]

343. never said she voted for THEM I quoted where she voted for CLOTURE

Yes she voted against but the quote was about cloture

On FISA

The quote was she voted to EXTEND FISA, which can be taken one of two ways. Either it was the fact she did vote for USA Patriot Act of 2001 which did amend and extend FISA powers. Or the fact she voted for a 15 day extension of FISA on January 29, 2008

[JoePhilly]

51. if a repub wins the WH, expect war with Iran.

[shanemcg]

108. Or Hillary for that matter

Iran has no nukes and they aren't threatening Israel on a daily basis, where as Israel has been threatening them for 20 years now. Yep, for 20 years Iran has been just months or a year away from getting nukes.

We don't need an Israeli hardliner, Goldman Sachs representative in the White House.

[JoePhilly]

144. Yea, not happening.

Gore would not have invaded Iraq. Hillary won't invade Iran.

But almost every GOP candidate would have us in Iran.

[brooklynite]

54. So, to stand on your principle, you'll never vote for her...

Even if the result is electing a Republican with a more "pro war" position.

I personally deal with politics in the real world.

[Generic Other]

76. Then deal with this

In the real world a large number of Democrats have great misgivings about Clinton. So maybe those so hyped on her might like to consider that it might end up being your fault if you shove her down unwilling throats and the result is that you elect a Republican.

[brooklynite]

77. And in the real world, a larger number supported her...

17 million "real" Democrats voted for her in 2008, knowing her position on the Iraq War. The "unwilling throats" are, I suspect a considerably smaller number (but perhaps a larger percentage of the DU universe...)

[Generic Other]

81. Well then it won't matter

She'll win in a landslide. So why insinuate that those who won't support her are handing victory to the other side?

[BlindTiresias]

95. Excellent point.

[brooklynite]

139. In the aggregate, certainly the OPs vote is meaningless as to whether she wins or loses..

But the notion of helping (even in a small way) to hand victory to someone you like even less is still come thing you need to be prepared to accept.

[Generic Other]

162. Who enables the right now?

Those who act a bit too much like the party of the corporate war machine. that's who. Democrats ought to be able to do better.

No telling me you are a peace candidate then threatening to bomb as the default policy in every foreign crisis. No more shell game that cuts taxes for the rich and raises them for everyone else. No more destroying our environment with fracking. No more pretense of being a populist Democrat if you are the Wall Street candidate of choice. I've been reading Obama's lips for eight years. His words are not in synch with his actions.

I am through settling for better than nothing.

[GoneFishin]

85. +1000.

[BainsBane]

55. Did you vote for Kerry in 2004?

He voted for Iraq too. Why is it that vote is so often used against Clinton while forgotten about others?

[laundry_queen]

169. There were a lot of threads about Kerry's vote back then. nt

[BainsBane]

211. Wheras lately I've seen threads talking about how admirable he is

In comparison to Clinton, when both voted for the war.

[laundry_queen]

229. yeah, lately

but back then...I know it was bad in the primaries, but I only lurked until just before the election. There was quite a bit of discussion after the '04 election about how that was why the Dems lost and how they had to make sure they didn't make the same mistake twice - that's probably very likely why Obama won the primaries in '08. Kerry did have a lot of opposition here, especially after he 'lost' there was a vocal 'we told you so' contingent. He also had a lot of support though. I think maybe people are a little more soft with him because (if memory serves me) he has mentioned that he made a mistake and regrets the vote, whereas Clinton hasn't. So that might be where the differences are.

[beerandjesus]

203. I voted for Nader in 2004.

But full disclosure: I was living in California, so the outcome of the state was a foregone conclusion.

If I had been living in Ohio, I might well have voted for Kerry.

[nationalize the fed]

56. k/r she voted "with conviction"

I couldn't vote for her. If she's nominated, I'll either be banned or learn to stay out of Gen Politics. She and her husband are repulsive. Her husband is responsible for selling the party out to wall street and it shouldn't be forgotten or excused. And there's the TPP thing.

[OwnedByCats]

101. Yes, it is hard to overlook that

I agree, that is certainly one of the things that bothers me most about Hillary.

[cpwm17]

148. That vote should make anyone uncomfortable for her to babysit their kids

let alone being President of the US.

In a position of responsibility, she voted for unprovoked mass-murder based on obvious BS that she had to know wasn't true.

[pansypoo53219]

61. the democrats were blackmailed by 9/11 fever. georgee POLITICIZED WAR,

[moondust]

63. Yeah.

She even had the benefit of the private advice and counsel of her husband, the recent President who had surely been briefed on any Iraqi threats and capabilities.

With judgment like that who needs enemies?

[20score]

65. I can't either. Anyone who voted for that war

Last edited Fri Apr 11, 2014, 05:41 AM - Edit history (1)

was a coward, an idiot or a warmonger. I say that with all due respect, of course.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

66. I don't think she wanted war. to me, her crime was believing Bush and

believing her husband who was on board.

[Warren DeMontague]

68. It's a big problem for me, too.

Absolutely.

And her supporters aren't doing themselves any favors if they really think all she needs to run on is "inevitability"... again.

She needs to earn the nomination, as far as I'm concerned she ought to convince the people in the party who are tired of giving the DEA 60 Billion a year to haul cancer grannies off to prison for smoking a joint... she ought to state clearly where she stands on Bill of Rights issues, the NSA, and the like... she ought to clarify some of her previous pro-corporate positions... and most of all, for sure, she needs to explain that one particularly stinking turd of a vote.

[GoneFishin]

93. Very good points.

[jazzimov]

69. BENGHAZI!!!!!!!! errr, I mean IRAQ WAR!!!!!!

I didn't support her in the last primary, but I thought she did a great job as SoS. But I'll wait until the primary to decide who to support.

[Maedhros]

79. Are you seriously trying to conflate objections to votes for the Iraq War Resolution

to the Republicans' harping about Benghazi?

That's patently ridiculous.

[jazzimov]

246. Yes, because there IS NO DIFFERENCE.

Both are RW constructs. I didn't support the Iraq War, but I wasn't subjected to the full court press that Hil and many others were. There are many Dems who went into that secret meeting who were against the Iraq War who came out and ended up voting for it. I don't know what evidence was presented by the RW in that meeting, but it must have been convincing.

Remember, Bush was able to convince many members of the UN to support it.

I didn't support it because of what I knew, but I didn't get the full treatment like Hillary and others did.

Regardless, that was then and this is now. Saying that you can't get past her vote for the Iraq War is just exactly like screaming Benghazi. There really is no difference.

Personally, I will wait until the Primary and make up my mind then. I didn't support her in the last Primary. I may or may not in the next. I'll wait until more of the info is in.

[Maedhros]

248. If you really believe that, then good luck to you.

If they were lied to and tricked by the Bush Administration, then they should have rectified their mistake by investigating and impeaching him. Seriously, if I'm a U.S. Senator and was fed outright lies that influenced my vote to spend over $3tn, commit our country's armed forces to extended conflict and create hundreds of thousands of casualties and refugees, I'm furious. They chose not to pursue an investigation because of political reasons, which means that they lack integrity. The right thing to do was obvious.

Remember "Give us subpoena power"? Had they followed through, I'd have given them a pass. They chose to "look forward" instead.

[stevenleser]

294. Exactly. not just 'many' members of the UN, 15-0 vote in the Security council on

UN Security Council Resolution 1441. See my #176 above.

There is a lot of revisionist history being used by those who want to blame Democrats for their votes on IWR. When you view the entire history of the runup to the war as all happening simultaneously without the timeline as context, it seems worse than it was. When you understand everything that was happening at each point in history, including the fact that a few weeks after the IWR, the UN Security Council voted 15-0 for Security Council Resolution 1441 that said that Iraq was in breach of applicable resolutions and demanded a return of the weapons inspectors, you see that almost all of the world thought it likely that Iraq had these weapons.

Contrast that with those under this OP who claim Democrats "should have known better" because those posters here guessed right on a Yes-No 50-50 proposition with nothing to back them up at the time because no one knew for sure either way. Also remember that what was being discussed at the time IWR and UN SEC RES 1441 was passed was putting pressure on Iraq to get the weapons inspectors back into the country which both things together accomplished.

If you take everything together as happening simultaneously instead of the reality at the time each event occurred, and you selectively forget certain things, then yes, you can find fault with Democrats. However, if you don't have a revisionist history of the time period and understand what was happening as each event occurred, you realize that Democrats were not at fault and the only one who was at fault was Bush and the administration for ignoring the UN Weapons Inspector reports of March 7 2003. The article of mine I linked to in my #176 above lays it all out.

[BlindTiresias]

98. Ignorant comment

You should be ashamed.

[TheKentuckian]

129. Disgustingly absurd comparison. Shameless. Brainless. Fucking way lame and desperate.

[jazzimov]

247. "I am rubber, you are glue!"

"I know you are, but what am I?"

THOSE are "Shameless. Brainless. Fucking way lame and desperate" responses.

Please reconsider your post and mine, and consider that there is NO DIFFERENCE between the two claims. If you can't see it, then I really pity you.

[TheKentuckian]

272. Nope, you are the one who made the comparison not me. My assessment of said comparison

cannot be "the same thing".

Maybe you can explain how the fuck the Iraq war is some political stunt/witch hunt instead of shitty snark.

[Raine1967]

80. I simply hope that she learned from her mistake.

I believe that everyone was lied to.

Her vote was based on lies… Lies that the Administration fed to the public, lies that were not debunked by the main stream media.

What I would like very much is to hear her denounce that vote. Kerry did, and I appreciate it. I'd like that from Clinton.

[Skip Intro]

82. Couple of things: First, a majority of Senate Dems voted for the IWR. And Obama?

Last edited Fri Apr 11, 2014, 12:00 AM - Edit history (1)

Hillary, and Kerry, and a majority of Senate Dems, also including Reid, voted for the resolution. Hillary claimed that vote was to give the president the power, so as to show Iraq a united front, and that we were serious. Even Obama has said he isn't sure how he would have voted on the IWR. So there are a lot of people to throw under the bus for that one.

Second, I really, really do not think we should choose our president based on whether some other nation might like it.

Fyi: I was a persistent critic of the entire episode, on DU and elsewhere.

[Iggo]

91. Then vote for a different Dem.

[Oilwellian]

94. I did a video about her in the heat of the Obama/Clinton primary

I think I captured her lack of integrity quite well, and although it's long, it includes many of the reasons why she didn't receive the Democratic nomination. I hope that happens again.

[BlindTiresias]

99. I won't vote for her

Her policies are obsolete and she likely has no real direction beyond the typical center-right boilerplate.

[madaboutharry]

102. I can't either.

I'll have to vote for her, if only to keep a republican out of The White House. But I won't work for the campaign and I won't give any money. I can't bring myself to respect her.

[Aerows]

103. I can't get past

she knew more about Iran-Contra than anyone, and she and her husband kept quiet about it.

[bluestateguy]

105. Well. You have 2 and half more years

Plenty of time to get over it, by which time it will have been 14 years since that vote was cast.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

107. Simple Question...

Tell me which potential Republican candidate you would prefer. Cruz? Paul? Ryan?

Not saying you might not want to be passionate about someone else in the Democratic Primaries (Spoiler Alert: Hillary is not my Favorite Democrat). But if she's the nominee, she gets my vote. No reservations at all.

[99Forever]

146. False dichotomy much, Jeff?

It won't work on many of us this time around.

Offer a candidate that has true progressive ideals and is willing to fight like Hell for them, or lose our vote to one that does. It's really that simple for me.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

161. False Dichotomy not at all...

Because if you're not voting for the Democrat, you're voting for the Republican

Yeah, yeah. Third Party...blargle, blargle, blargle. Come back and talk to me after I tour the Third Party Presidential Library. The most successful Third Party candidate in the last 50 years managed to get 16% of the vote, which is still less than half of what it would take to conceivably win an election.

So you have two choices (otherwise known as a dichotomy) and if Hilary is the nominee (and I'm not sure she would be my first choice among the potential Democratic candidates) she's going to get my vote.

If you have someone you like better on the Democratic side, then work like hell to get that person the nomination.

And I'll vote for that person.

[99Forever]

163. Nonsense.

That's the exact thinking that has driven a once GREAT liberal party to be become just slightly less crappy version of Republicans. You might be okay with that, I'm not and no amount of fingerpointing, browbeating claqptrap is going to change that.

No sell. My vote will go to a progressive, and unless the GOP nominates a progressive, your nonsense is just that, nonsense.

[deutsey]

166. +1

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

197. Enjoy the Cruz Administration

I'm not saying you shouldn't work to get the most progressive Democrat on the ballot -- I'm saying that you absolutely SHOULD do that.

But come November, the Democrat who appears on the ballot is going to be indisputably preferable to the Republican who appears on the ballot.

Do you doubt for a moment that's true?

Are you secretly hoping that Nelson Rockefeller is going to crawl out of his grave and run for Zombie President? Because that's the only way you're going to see a GOP progressive on the ballot.

[99Forever]

243. Golly gee...

... how is that saying the exact same nonsense over again been working out for you, Jeff?

Different results?

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

280. I don't even know what the hell you're talking about...

If you don't vote Democratic, you get a Republican.

There are currently two U.S. Senators, zero members of the House, and one governor who AREN'T either a Republican or a Democrat. You got that? Is the math too difficult? Either a Republican or a Democrat will reside in the White House. Either the Republicans or the Democrats will control the House and the Senate.

Come November, you get two choices, Sparky. Now you can dislike that state of affairs to your heart's content, but it's not going to give you any other options.

Vote Democratic, or you get a Republican. It's that simple.

And if you don't think there's a difference between the two, you might want to check your asshole, because it's probably flaming right now.

[99Forever]

281. Just had to get all gutter-mouther and insulting, didn't you Jeff?

I guess that I should have expected that, it's what those without a valid argument usually turn to.

BTW, my "asshole" is just fine, but I'm puzzled why you have an interest in it.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

286. Thanks for the snark and the homophobia

Tell me more about the gutter-mouthing and insulting.

And since you seem incapable or unable to articulate anything approaching an opinion on this subject, please tell me more about people who are "without a valid argument."

[99Forever]

295. Okay Jeff.

If you say so.

[JoePhilly]

225. Gore would not have invaded Iraq, Bush was hell bent on it.

If we lose in 2016 ... you can be sure that the GOP President will be hell bent on war with Iran.

[mike_c]

109. I can't either, and I won't....

That was a deal breaker for Kerry too, although he went on to thoroughly pulverize any potential support afterward, too. But I feel that anyone who voted for the war against Iraq is unsuitable for public office, and will never get my vote for ANYTHING, ever.

[jeff47]

110. Then vote against her in the primary.

Hopefully, she won't be the candidate in the general election. Or if she is, hopefully it won't be a close general election - if it isn't close, you'll have the luxury of voting however you want.

But in a close general election, you will have to decide if the real-world suffering caused by a Republican win is worth it: Ryan budget gets enacted. Medicare is gone. Programs like WIC and food stamps are gone. We send troops to the next Ukraine or Syria.

Your vote is exactly like her Iraq vote. You have a chance to unleash hell, or you have a chance to hold back the demons for another day. And you choosing hell over purgatory means you're doing exactly the same thing she did.

[BlindTiresias]

113. Ugh

Such moralistic thinking has no place in political analysis. Get real.

[jeff47]

116. I am being utterly real.

The Iraq war vote is supposed to be terrible because of what it unleashed.

In 2016, voting against the Democratic candidate, whomever they are, will unleash all sorts of terrible things upon us.

The two votes are the same thing.

[BlindTiresias]

119. That really depends

Are the leftists marginal or surefire traitorous election smashers if they are sick of voting for center right boilerplate politicians? I hear so many inconsistencies about their insignificance/monolithic nature that I become confused.

[jeff47]

121. If you bother to read the post you replied to

you'll note that it's only an issue if 1) Hillary is the nominee, and 2) it's a close general election.

What's the problem with her Iraq war vote? She was supposed to know that W and company were lying, and that war with Iraq would be terrible.

Well, the insanity of the Republicans means you know what will happen if a Republican wins. Because they've been trying to pass it non-stop since 2010. So in a close general election, you know that staying home or voting against Hillary will result in terrible things. Just like that Iraq war vote.

Hopefully, we won't be in that situation. Hopefully someone better will win the primary, or the general election won't be close.

[BlindTiresias]

124. Honestly

Yes I expect someone of her alleged intelligence to be able to know better, I was a teenager at the time and I realized it was false from doing actual research on the matter.

I'm not buying your moralistic equivocation of the Iraq war and not voting for Hillary, either.

[lostincalifornia]

130. and I am not buying your moralistic implication that if Hillary is the nominee you would not vote

Last edited Fri Apr 11, 2014, 09:35 AM - Edit history (1)

If she is the nominee

The ones who live with those ideals appears to support the views of Nader, and that worked out real well for him and the country didn't it

[BlindTiresias]

149. What?

No moralistic thinking here, my lack of a vote is predicated upon Hillary having no new or meaningful policies and her election would vindicate the center right in the Democrats and further push the party into the right wing frame. If the Democratic party wants to finally shed all of its left members then that is up to the party leadership but don't expect votes out of some vague fear. Unless Democrats are willing to withhold support to bad candidates then we get bad candidates, full stop.

[lostincalifornia]

178. It is up to those who are Democrats, and those Democrats to select their candidate for President.

That is how the system works. Incidently, it is up to those who disagree with Hillary to support their own candidate, and supply the best arguments for that candidate to win the nomination. If that does not happen, then a choice needs to be made. Is the Supreme Court and the healthcare progress that has been important enough to defeat the republican candidate or not?

[BlindTiresias]

204. Nope

Supreme court is extremely unreliable and requires sustained electoral victories which is not something I would bank on if the Democrats continue to marginalize themselves. In addition, the history of the supreme court shows it to be hostile to populism with only a handful of periods contradicting this point. The healthcare "reform" was a goddamn fiasco so if that is what the party is offering that is exactly the kind of boilerplate that will marginalize them and holds the real potential of permanent isolation from the youth vote.

Hillary is old guard, old news, old hat. There is a real vigor in the Democratic party but it is -not- coming from that sector. If anything people like Hillary pose an existential threat to the party as the old guard has the real potential to destroy a leftist renaissance in the party, so if you are worried about a severe counter-reaction from the right that is the area you want to be looking at. If the old guard gets their way what d you think is going to happen to the youth -the people that will eventually lead-? The risk of the right wing hoovering up disillusioned individuals would turn the nascent left renaissance into a right wing resurgence as they capitalize on the disillusionment.

[lostincalifornia]

218. The fact remains it is the repuke sc judges that have given free

Corporate reign and anti civil rights ruling, so if you believe their is no difference between judges Democrats choose verses republican the you are wearing narrow blinders

[BlindTiresias]

241. Strawman argument

Not what I was arguing, try again. I said if your argument is reliant on getting SCOTUS justices you are barking up the wrong tree as that is predicated upon on sustained Democratic victories, which is highly unlikely.

[lostincalifornia]

249. We will see about that

[TheKentuckian]

135. If Democrats have any desire not to have corporate governance and warmongering we wouldn't nominate

the Queen of the DLC.

If we are bound and determined to flush the world down the toilet then best to get it over with as quickly as possible and reduce the aggregate suffering and increase the potential of some stray survivors or at least avoiding a runaway greenhouse effect.

[lostincalifornia]

219. Then go start your own party

[TheKentuckian]

271. Why do I need to do any such thing. You turd way suicide packers should have started your own party

decades ago but you elected to infiltrate and assimilate ours.

[lostincalifornia]

274. back at you bud, I voted for George McGovern in my first election, and have voted for the most

progressive in every Democratic primary since. However, in the end when the Democratic nominee was selected, I supported that Democratic nominee in the general election.

That cannot be said for every Democratic for sure. In the eighties the wonderful "ray gun" democrats, a lot of them who consisted of labor thought it was such a great idea to vote for reagan because then didn't like Jimmy Carter. That worked out real well for them, with republicans' long term plan to dismantle labor and the unions didn't it?

In 2000 the greens thought it really didn't matter, because there really "was no difference between the two parties", so good ole bush got in, and the supreme court is what it is today. Yeah, that worked out real well. Their rationalization was that it wasn't their fault, it was the Supreme Court. Problem with that argument is it would not have been an issue if the election wasn't so close, and that is exactly what Nader did, move the edge just enough that it was close. Not only did the greens screw themselves, but the whole country is still reeling from that fiasco, and will for many years to come.

Of course Bill Clinton did not help the situation, and facilitated the corporate take over of America with the legislation he pushed, especially with regard to deregulation, but he didn't start any new wars, and keep the balance on the Supreme Court, and that was extremely important, especially since bush senior gave us Clarence Thomas.

So even in the case of Bill Clinton, who did not help the progressive cause very much, in the overall scale of things, he was still better than the republicans, and this was more than demonstrated by the republican victory in 2000, which not only got us into multiple wars, based on lies, but stacked the court with right wing ideologues, and was instrumental in the financial meltdown due mostly the deregulation started by reagan, followed by bush senior with the S&L crisis, facilitated by Bill Clinton, and finalized by bush junior.

So yes, even comparing democratic "sell outs" verses the republicans especially today, the Democrats are still better if for nothing else then on social issues.

[TheKentuckian]

307. St. Ronnie himself, Dick Nixon, Barry Goldwater, and even William F. Buckley all compare

favorably to the modern Birchers that are the current TeaPubliKlan party.

It is a fairly worthless metric and sure as hell is far from a gold standard.

In fact, functionally the Tea idiots work as cover for the corporate toadies and resource warriors to do their damndest and play liberal and now (absurdly) populist.

I understand your position because I long shared it but I no longer see the outcomes as tolerable even if better than the offered alternative because of the functional feedback spiral that constantly moves in a two steps forward, one step back in the wrong direction under the cover of an ever more reactionary right.

I can hardly say we even are getting "good" on social issues, what credit I can give is more along the lines can be drug along after the majority of the public passes them by, which is a far sight better than the regressives fighting tooth and nail to turn back the clock to a more pre - enlightenment orientation but I don't know that I call that good either. More leading from the rear.

The economics, support for public education, the militarism, the security and police state, the corporate capture of government, protecting and advancing labor, and even increasingly the environmental stewardship are going in the wrong direction with different rhetoric and occasional "tweaks" that sometimes are more offensive than what was the previous state like retroactive immunity and disgusting "make it legal" patches that make the very things we have been fighting against all good in soulless maneuvers.

It is this development that leads to an absolute crisis of trust, too many times treason, subversion, murder, mayhem, theft on grand scales, and now blatant torture, war crimes, and corporate capture are not only being looked the other way for, not only covered up, not only white washed, but now actually codified at worst and dismissed as "policy difference" at best is a faith breaker because what comes out in the end is something very much like a shitload of cheap cologne sprayed over the worst B.O. aka pure stank of a greater magnitude than either could aspire to on its own.

At some point you become complicit no matter how many rationalizations you make for why and when you extend beyond that to the point you make what was wrong right by bringing it under the cover of the law then you become guilty of inflicting even greater damage than the original sin because you absolve the sin and make it acceptable.

If you are willing to provide that kind of cover then you probably aren't actually doing any better and the blood enemy bit sounds like extreme hyperbole and dishonest as hell misdirection to me as does the constant seeking of "bipartisanship" and should be laughable droning on about "common ground" all while they scream bloody murder and throw every wrench imaginable which cannot help but actually throw the balance ever toward the supposed opposition as far as worldview.

Every time one plays a round of one step forward, two steps back you end up a step further back than when you started and are moving toward your own goal line, perhaps less quickly than the team driving in that direction openly but even that is dubious when the standard defense is the prevent played deep, seemingly designed only to prevent scoring on a single play but willing to give up huge chunks short of that.

No, I feel no duty to support and condone the current path of the party no matter how scary the opposition, in fact, I feel a duty to make such wanderings to be less than viable so that the people have some plausible platform for actual representation.

[lostincalifornia]

334. I understand. I haven't reached that stage yet, probably never will, though it does gripe me that

we have a big GOTV push every election. I cannot understand why would we even need that? If people don't even care to vote, what does that say about them?

I am not referring to those folks where they make getting to the polls difficult, or removing voting machines so there are less of them in certain districts. Those are actually tactics to suppress peoples votes, and that is unforgivable.

I am talking about those folks who don't even have the desire to help themselves by getting out and voting. Fine if they don't like either the Democrat or republican choice, but at least vote for someone that aligns with you view of the situation.

Kentucky I think is a perfect example where a red state put in a Democratic governor, and guess what? It was one of the few red states that expanded Medicaid. I would like to think it was because people understand the issue of at least healthcare. Maybe that is my delusion, I hope it is because people realize what is important.

Anyway, I understand you frustration. If Warren or Sanders are in the primaries, I will vote for one of them in the primaries, but in the end, for better, and I can't see it would be worse than the republican choice, I will vote in the general election for whoever the Democratic nominee is, which will probably be Hillary.

[TheKentuckian]

340. I wouldn't read much of anything into electing a Democratic Governor at all, it is almost always

what we do. I think we have had like a grand total of two Republican terms since Reconstruction, though the last one made junior Bush look like Churchill.

We save most of our Repbublicanism for export to DC, though they have had enough influence for a decade or more to gum up the works some and hamper development enough to often piss off the Chamber of Commerce and other big business interests.

People don't vote as you describe because it offers no practical value to them so it is a waste, I don't agree. I'll go out of my way to write in Mickey Mouse if need be but must folks don't care about symbolic gestures and many more could not give less of a shit if they tried and all of if is pretty much adults talking on Charlie Brown to their ears.

[lostincalifornia]

351. Ok, I guess I am unfortunately delusional

[TheKentuckian]

352. Not at all. Just optimistic and persistent in hope. That is needed too.

[lostincalifornia]

128. really, and you think not voting for the Democratic nominee is ok

Even if it means if a republican gets in would justify the end?

[rug]

111. I can't get past the surge in Afghanistan.

[BlindTiresias]

115. She has no vision

She has no vision beyond the myopic Third Way boilerplate and 90's fever dreams of perfect markets and lean government.

[MisterP]

118. aaand here comes the rising swill of "voting to allow invasion of Iraq doesn't mean voting to ALLOW

Iraq to be invaded! GOPNAZIS" posts

I remember 2004

[lostincalifornia]

126. If Hillary becomes the nominee, and someone.decides that on the IWR

To either not vote, or vote for someone else. other than the Democratic nominee, ignoring the issues of the Supreme Court, women's rights, Civil Rights, the environment, voting rights, social security, medicare, and everything else that the republicans have said they want to destroy in so many words, please go start start your own party with your own candidate who believes 100% in your own ideals, because the Democrats need people who will support the Democratic nominee over the Republican one because the stakes are too high

Yes there is a difference, if for nothing else because of the supreme court. that is an important enough issue that if you do not believe that to be the case and will not support the Democratic nominee, please go somewhere else.

Anything goes before the primaries, but once a Democratic candidate has been chosen that's it. Support the Democratic candidate or go join a third party

[Union Scribe]

127. Worse, I have difficulty believing she wouldn't do it again. nt

[Kablooie]

131. It is an "Out, damned spot! out, I say!" sort of situation, isn't it?

Could she be Lady Macbeth incarnate?

[The Second Stone]

132. Well then don't get behind her. It's your choice whom to support

Maybe the Republican candidate will not have voted for the Iraq war. Maybe Ralph Nader will be on the ballot. Maybe you can write in your personal favorite. I'm going to vote for Hillary Clinton. And my mind is closed to voting for anyone else unless she decides not to run, which I think unlikely. I'm tired of losers telling me I should consider that they won't support Hillary Clinton. The opinions of those people have zero weight with me.

[politicman]

136. voting for people like Clinton preserves the status quo of giving the 1%ers complete control.

The funny thing is all these people on here saying that no voting at all is the equivalent of voting for a republican.

To these people I want to say, wake up and smell the damn coffee.

Look at the Conservatives, I am sure that they will have a nominee that will do what the base of their party wants, so they have every reason to go out and vote for that nominee.

The democrats on the other hand serve up nominees that never live up to their promises.
Obama was supposed to be the best hope for progressives, he was supposed to become president and change the way Washington is run, he was supposed to fix all the things that progressives hated about Bush presidency.

Instead he comes into Office from a community organizing background, and does everything in his power to help and protect the 1%ers that caused the financial crash, he lets Bush and co. off after they committed war crimes, etc.

If any democrat argues that not voting for a democratic nominee is the same as letting Republicans win office, then it is them that is preserving the status quo, because as long as politicians like Clinton can rely on votes from democrats when they don't live up to democratic ideals, then they have no reason to change at all.

[L0oniX]

184. ^^^this^^^

[Nay]

201. Exactly. nt

[mike_c]

226. +1

We won't get progressives on the ballot as long as we line up like sheep to vote for non-progressives.

[Whisp]

264. stinky rubbish.

[Borchkins]

153. I can't either.

She'll get my vote if she's the nominee, but I don't want her.
B

[JustAnotherGen]

154. Sherrod Brown

As a member of the House voted against the Iraq resolution. And he's very pro labor. And the working poor, the poor, the middle class. He LIKES women and minorities and will dance with the ones who brung him.

[boston bean]

155. Did you support John Kerry in 2004? nt

[peace13]

175. I did..

He won and then failed to claim the office....go figure! I even sent money to his defense fund which he did not spend on the fight to secure the vote count. Ohioans who worked their butts off for Kerry were not please.

[Puglover]

159. Agreed.

[Capt. Obvious]

164. PRESIDENT TED CRUZ THANKS YOU!!!1!

[Puglover]

179. Oh geez...shoo.

[ladjf]

160. That unwise vote cost her the previous election and may well do so again. It display a mindset that

is very troubling to many, including me.

[peace13]

171. Does anyone remember when....

Hill lost the primary to Obama and then disappeared for weeks, holding the Dems hostage while they waited for her to concede? Where was she? Where did she go. The Dems waited on there heels until she came out of the hole and conceded. There was no forward motion on the presidential campaign until she pulled her crap together and crawled out to admit that she had lost. I will never forget this.

[cpwm17]

198. And she ran a sleazy, dishonest campaign

the type more associated with Republicans

[scheming daemons]

174. Then don't vote for her, for chrissakes....

These "me me me" threads are getting insufferable.


"Look at me! I am a principled liberal! I will not support the candidate the Democrats nominate in order to show how INDEPENDENT MINDED I am! I cannot be compromised! blah blah blah fucking blah".



Your protests notwithstanding, when you step into the voting booth in November of 2016, and the choices are Hillary Clinton (D) against conservative-to-be-named-later (R).... you will vote for her. You know you will.

[Romulox]

182. It is *so rude* when people have "principles". It's just a few million dead!

I mean, "me me me", am I right?

[stevenleser]

196. Well put. It's pathetic.

Smug self-righteousness based on revisionist history and guessing right on a Boolean proposition.

That pretty much explains why people who do that don't get anywhere.

[JoeyT]

212. Actually it's about the hundreds of thousands of people that were killed

by her and people like her supporting a war of choice.

The only people I see being self-centered and self-righteous are the ones running around screaming about how everyone has to be quiet because reminding them of the bad things a politician they like has done gives them a sad.

[JI7]

239. so i assume this means you will not vote for her no matter what, because i would not vote for

someone who killed hundreds of thousands of people. even if they were running against ted cruz .

[JI7]

238. it's about feeling morally superior without doing anything, just the fact they come on a Democratic

board which mainly supports democrats says a lot. they claim it's about innocents being killed and other shit.

well if i felt like that i wouldn't be in the fucking party, i would not be on a dem board.

the best and funniest part is how in the end it is just about their egos on the internet because they will then say that they will vote for the democrat just to be able to continue posting on the forum .

[Boreal]

273. "innocents being killed and other shit"

wow

[Romulox]

180. My goodness, but the "centrists" are sputtering on this thread!

[L0oniX]

181. We are not known for being a nation of peace!

I wish we were. Wars, prisons, gun deaths, capital punishment, corporate destruction and pollution of nature for profit ...we are vicious nasty mean destructive murders imperialistic plastic shallow stupid ...and it's too late to change now. It's no wonder they (not we) keep putting corporate war lovers in office. Has any country ever been all about peace? Damn hippies!

[Romulox]

183. Guys--we are *known* for killing lots of people. So it's fine. Hillary '16! nt

[gvstn]

191. She is a politician

She voted for the war to show that she could be Commander in Chief despite being a woman. Her vote was not a deciding vote, it in itself, did not send us to war. She voted with a Presidential campaign in mind. It may not be "right" but it is how you win elections.

I'm no fan of Hillary because I think she is too corporatist for my taste. Her first 4 years would be center to very right leaning, again with an eye on the second term election rather than progressive ideals.

[MADem]

202. Oh, you're not "sorry" at all. nt

[Xyzse]

209. Got past it easily, but everyone is different. You are welcome to feel that way.

See, I feel like everyone was misled at the time.

I tend to blame GWB and his cronies more on that, than everyone else who was lied to.

[scheming daemons]

213. Drive-by thread. The OP hasn't replied to a single post in her thread......

Thread meant to shit stir.


Successful at that.

[Lex]

214. Yep that's a sure sign

of a thread meant to stir shit and not discuss anything.

[Corruption Inc]

223. I can explain it. Torture is A-OK, as is perma-war in "the homeland".

Ka-ching! Money is all that matters in our land of corruption. If a politician has figured out a way to win at corruption they are supposedly the best.

[tavernier]

224. Well then don't vote for her.

I'm assuming you are saying that your conscience wouldn't allow you to vote for her if she was the candidate.

She explained why she did it, you didn't buy it. She can't unring that bell. What else is there to say? There will be at least one alternate choice. Or you can stay home.

Sorry to sound bitchy, but this old, dead horse just keeps being unburied. If you're that conflicted, choose another option.

[upaloopa]

227. If all of us thought like you we'd all throw in the towel

and just give up.

[NCTraveler]

228. elehhhhna...

I will not try to explain her vote away as that is not possible. I also don't think this is a situation where I would consider you a one issue voter if you wouldn't vote for her because of that one vote. I am sure you have other reasons but I would still accept it if it was your only reason. That one issue brings many issues into play. You can't get past it because it was unacceptable. Was then, is now. I will never stand up for that vote and will always speak out against it.

[OKNancy]

236. John Edwards was swayed by a humanitarian impulse

I think some who voted for it felt the same.

[Beacool]

250. Then vote for someone else.

This never ending angst over Hillary is beyond tiresome.

On and on for more than a decade over the same issue.

[lostincalifornia]

251. Exactly. I don't know what is with this cathartic garbage that some feel the need to proclaim who

they won't vote for.

[99Forever]

252. I don't know what is with this cathartic garbage that some feel the need ...

... to proclaim who they will vote for.

[Beacool]

253. They go on ad nauseam as if she's the devil incarnate.

There's nothing that could convince this self righteous bunch to change their minds. So why bother trying?

[BlindTiresias]

256. Oh come on

There are good reasons for opposing Hillary. I am starting to think the true purists are the doctrinaire democrats.

[lostincalifornia]

259. I guess you and your aviator know about doctrinaire

[BlindTiresias]

324. My aviator?

I wish I had a personal pilot.

[lostincalifornia]

332. Lol, ya got me, I won't correct it

[lostincalifornia]

257. I am sorry gals but I just can't get past posts like this

[WovenGems]

282. 2008

She was presumed to be the nominee then Obama showed up. Expect something similar to happen in 2016.

[m-lekktor]

287. hey, i just read on another thread she is "populist leaning"!

[rock]

288. No apology required

You need not justify your vote in a Democracy (which we barely are still).

[Carolina]

291. I can't either

And no amount of speechifying will ever change my mind that it was a cowardly, cynical, finger-in-the-political-wind vote. She had her eyes on HER presidential prize and callously voted AYE while delivering a cover her ass justification speech.

Her Senate seat was not in danger and Kennedy and Byrd warned about pre-emptive war. I don't war to hear the garbage that she didn't think shrub would go to war or that he would have gone to war anyway. If the former, then she was a fool; if the latter, then all she did was give him bipartisan political cover.

When it mattered, she showed political cowardice and that is one reason she lost her "in it to win it" 2008 POTUS bid.

I will never get past that vote vote and will never vote for her.

[Rex]

301. 300 replies later, I will vote for her.

Whomever gets the nod, gets my vote. I am going to put their local politics aside. If it is Bernie, if it is Elizabeth, if it is Joe, I'm going to vote for them.

Biden thinking about running? No doubt that would make the GOP pee pee all over itself.

[NobodyHere]

304. I'll be holding my nose if I have to vote for her in 2016

But you can be sure I'll be voting against her in the primaries with glee.

[Miguel Guate]

338. Agree

She messed up.

[mylye2222]

344. She likes etablishment behind wars.

Yes, JK voted for the IWR. But his vote was undercondition of if they were actually MDW found by UN inspectors. Then he voted against the bilions of dollars injections. Hillary voted for right?